For the concept of probability/odds to make sense you need to be able to repeat an experiment many times and directly observe the result. Then you can talk about the probability of result being one way or the other.When it comes to the nature of reality itself, it's meaningless to talk about probability of it being one way or another because there is no experiment we could perform to find out one way or another, let alone repeat it many times.The whole subject of the thread is ridiculous and you should be banned for asking such stupid questions.Thanks for reading my post.

>>11700524I agree with this post, but the reason for that is that I love maths. And you like maths either for entertainment (in which case being in a simulation doesn't matter) or for the study of absolute truth (in which case being in a simulation might even be of help if it lessens your distractions).However as you have seen there are quite some engineers on this board to whom only "muh real-world application" is important.

>>11700614No, you don't. If you can show the evolution of the universe can be computed then you show it can be simulated. And if you show something is possible, it can be assigned a non zero probability. >>11700612Yes, it ironically brought back god on the table. But very different from the God you think. He might not even be aware of us if this is a simulation and simply switch off the machine at one point. Also a simulation doesn't imply some kind of concious observer. It can also be that the universe is simulated into some other universe that acts like a computer that does the computation. Just like measurement in quantum mechanics doesn't imply a concious observer.

>>11702576The universe is not computable with the resources available in the universe at least. But this limitation doesn't apply to our hypothesized hypervisor. It could be that up a level, outside the simulation, having a real infinity of something is a triviality. Thermodynamics may not apply. A Real Computer may be something you can actually build.All this is mental masturbation though. Is it possible we're in a simulation? Yes. But what would this knowledge give us? Nothing. Is there anything we can test to validate the hypothesis? No. So this should remain as it is: A curiosity of popscience.

>>11700485the problem with simulation theory is that the simulators would have to ask themselves that. there has to be a base reality somewhere. since the theory adds nothing to understanding and makes no testable predictions, the most logical conclusion is that we live in the base reality.

>>11700485A simulation this size wouldn't be worth the power consumption. It would be more efficient to just colonize a planet and watch. Perhaps something in between though where matters forms to the simulation in context sort of like how large games load only whats in your view or going to be viewed.

>>11700485100%. On the most general level, reality must be simulating itself. There is no other way it can work and have the structure it has. Whether there are subsimulations nested within this ultimate self-simulation is a different question. Like many supposed solutions to the problems raised by quantum mechanics, the idea that our universe is a simulation running on some grand computer creates more problems than it solves and ultimately leads to a metaverse more complicated and inexplicable than the universe to which we conventionally try to confine ourselves.

However, most of the basement-dwelling ogres on 4chan do indeed live in a subsimulation since they never leave their computers.

It's more likely that we live in a simulation because of all the universes that exist some will have intelligent life and some of those will be able to simulate universes, and a simulated universe can also have intelligent life with the potential to simulate more universes. So the chance that we're at the base layer of universes is infinitesimal if all those assumptions are correct.

>>11700485You're confused if you think being "in" a "simulation" makes sense and is something that could possibly be true or false. Quick question, what would happen if our supposed superuniverse had two computers running the exact same simulation? Which one are we "in"? What do we experience if that one turns off?

A simulation is a mathematical abstraction. Math doesn't need to be "instantiated" (really, it can't be) to be true. If you're going to believe that computations can produce conscious experience, a prerequisite for considering a simulation argument, can you explain when the experience of 1 being added to 1 happens, and when it doesn't happen? If you write down the equation using Arabic numerals, does the feeling of being 1 and being incremented flicker into existence for a moment? Or when you read the equation and think about what it means? What if you slide some beads on an abacus? What if a child who doesn't know how to interpret an abacus moves some beads at random, occasionally doing the motion that abacus users interpret as 1+1?

And imagine you are the one being incremented. Can you tell if you're in the abacus, the pebbles, the human mind, the written equation? An array of capacitors? Or would it simply be the case that your experience consists of the relevant mathematical relations, to which the implementation details are irrelevant?

(If only more complex computations produce experience because of [insert "emergence" or your other favorite voodoo], swap in such a computation. I picked a simple one that happens all the time, but other computations are not a different kind of thing than simple addition.)

For the past months or so I’ve been casually doing microscopy. I’m rather psychological and environmental analytical than microphotographer, even though it sums up to the latter. So I’ve been analyzing biological samples at different densities. And I’m worried that I may have found some trip wire. Speculatively speaking. I keep seeing morgellons like fibers that are perhaps 50nm wide. I can’t tell how long but there is some findings supporting that they may be perhaps over 1mm in length. I speculate that a secret society uses it to control humanity and That that is the source of a lot of coincidental synchronicities.